Citizens have a stake in state Senate rules battle

e-mail this story

But in the South Carolina Senate, it often boils down to one person, no vote.

Unlike their more numerous House counterparts, a lone South Carolina senator can invoke the unique — and unwritten — right of senatorial courtesy to block debate on virtually any piece of legislation.

What proponents of the current arrangement see as a safeguard against the railroading of bad legislation and preservation of the Senate's traditional role as the more deliberative body, the other side views as tyranny of a minority that stifles innovation and debate.

Because of that perk, it's much easier to kill than pass legislation there. And that's not even counting the Senate's generous bill-killing filibuster rule. Or "bobtailing," a tactic used to render a bill unpalatable or packed with hometown pork.

Things could change Tuesday when the 2005 General Assembly convenes with some members, backed by Gov. Mark Sanford, opening the fight to rewrite the body's rules. Whether the Senate remains the graveyard of legislation is likely to be decided that afternoon.

Powerful interests are behind the change.

The South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, chaired by Greenville banker Mack Whittle, president and chief executive officer of The South Financial Group, is pushing the change, along with an array of pro-business bills.

Another key player is the Palmetto Institute, which was founded by financier Darla Moore, the South Carolina Council on Competitiveness and the Palmetto Business Forum.

Sen. Thomas Alexander, a Walhalla Republican, said rules changes are critical.

"I think it's going to set the tone for our ability to get the people's work done," he said.

Alex Sanders has "ambivalent thoughts" about the changes.

The chairman of the Charleston School of Law's advisory board said, "Those rules are so roundly decried by people who have no experience with how the Senate works, (but) it's not so nearly nefarious as it gets credit for being."

Sanders said the state Senate is typical of most democratic deliberative bodies. He served eight years in the state Senate and then became the chief judge of the state Court of Appeals. He later was president of the College of Charleston.

Unique role John Simpkins, a Furman University political science professor, said the Senate's unique status "is a protection for minority interests, to make sure that one group doesn't simply have its way with the process.

The filibuster and special privilege rules that exist in the Senate are meant to ensure that there has to be a super-majority for any concrete action to take place.

Simpkins, also an associate director of the Richard W. Riley Institute, described the Senate's role as half of a cup-and-saucer approach.

"The House is the cup where the passions of the people boil over in the Senate saucer, where it's meant to cool things down with time for reflection before any rash action is taken," he said.

"This is the role the Senate is supposed to play."

Although supporters are mostly Republicans and say they have the votes, GOP senators aren't a monolithic bloc on the issue.

"We've got Republicans who will never vote for it," said Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, who is pushing the change.

"This is where party interests and institutional interests intersect," said Simpkins.

And personal.

Among opponents who are outside each party's leadership and for whom committee chairmanships are a distant dream, there may be fear of losing perks that are their major source of influence, leaving it "not as pure an issue as some would make it out to be," Simpkins said.

Partisan move? There are partisan overtones.

Sen. Gerald Malloy, a Hartsville Democrat, said he is suspicious of some of the changes because years ago, when Democrats were in charge, it took 31 votes to shut off debate.

Now, with the GOP holding a 26-20 majority, the pro-change element would curtail senatorial courtesy by reducing the number to 26 from the current 28.

The death of Sanford's bills, including an income tax rollback and massive restructuring of state government, blocked from decisive votes in the Senate in 2003 and 2004, is the catalyst for change, proponents say.

Sanford has sought to marshal support from the grassroots to the business community to friendly senators.

"Should we allow bills to effectively die because one doesn't like an idea or the person offering it? Sanford questioned in a recent op-ed column.

"Imagine going to vote at your local precinct on election day only to find out no election was taking place because one person there didn't want there to be a vote."

Joe Erwin, the state Democratic Party chairman, isn't sold: "I urge caution."

To Erwin, a Greenville advertising executive, it's the proposed changes that are "something to be concerned about. The Senate has always been the more deliberate body, the one where things could be slowed down to ensure a more thoughtful analysis."

Erwin said he worries that legislation will be railroaded through without adequate scrutiny by the press and public.

With the GOP holding the Governor's Office and both the House and Senate, the addition of the rules change concentrates too much power without enough checks and balances, Erwin said.

Victory predicted Senate Majority Leader Hugh Leatherman, R-Florence, said change is coming and it's not about politics, but about making the system work.

"If the Lord himself was in the chamber, I don't think you would get 31 votes to say it was the Lord," he said. "It's just time to change and we are going to change. People are demanding we change. People out there understand the Senate the last couple of years has not tended to the people's business."

Leatherman said he has the votes because "what will be proposed will in no way shut off adequate, meaningful debate by the minority view. But at some point in time there comes a time to vote on the issue. After two to three days of debate if a colleague hasn't convinced me of what he has proposed, I'm not sure another three days will."

There's more to the rules fight than senatorial courtesy.

Sanford's allies are seeking also to revamp the rules on filibusters and "bobtailing," the practice that allows senators to add nongermane amendments to bills. Although the state's constitution limits bills to a single subject, it refers only to the title and not the text.

South Carolina Senate filibusters aren't filibusters in the Washington sense.

Forget visions of Strom Thurmond holding forth for 24 hours and change, regaling weary colleagues with commentary on anything and everything to delay a vote.

Leisurely filibuster In Columbia, senators have more leisurely filibusters. There is time for lunch, rest breaks and a good night's sleep at their hotels or apartments, long weekends at home. The length of their filibusters aren't determined by how long the human body can go without bathroom visits and rest.

Sanford and his allies have long complained that Senate rules have stymied his legislative agenda.

For example, the House and a Senate committee approved the state income tax reduction plan that was a centerpiece of Sanford's 2002 election campaign, but objections from individual senators doomed a floor vote.

When lawmakers adjourned last June, one senator delayed 39 bills and 60 others never made it off the calendar to a vote. The Senate's last-day calendar was the size of a small book.

Martin, the Rules Committee chairman, said the changes would break session-ending logjams.

He said that in the second year of each of the past two two-year sessions, members have found it impossible to bring legislation to a vote because of filibusters and a backlog of bills that defied any movement.

The proposals would allow senatorial privilege to be overridden and bobtailing would be addressed by requiring a bill's text to be limited to the title's subject.

Martin expects a decision on Tuesday.

Why?

"You can't filibuster on rules." Dan Hoover covers politics and can be reached at 298-4883.